All Things to All People: Boundary Organizations & the Contemporary

Research University

by John N. Parker
1,2*
& Beatrice I. Crona
3,4


1
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State Street, Suite 300, Santa
Barbara, CA 93101, USA.
2
Barrett Honors College, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 58287-1612, USA.
3
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden
4
Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 58287-
1612, USA.





















*
Corresponding author: tel. +1 805 892-2528; email: parker@nceas.ucsb.edu

For though I be free from all men, yet I have made myself a servant unto all, that I might gain
the moreI am made all things to all men, that I might try by all means to save some.
First Corinthians, 9:19-23

The environmental challenges presently facing humanity are becoming increasingly complex.
More often than not, seemingly local issues spill over and affect other resources, sectors and
interest groups, resulting in what some have referred to as wicked problems characterized by
high uncertainty and complexity (Rittel and Weber, 1973; Ludwig et al., 2001). Though policy
makers are urgently calling for research to inform environmental management decisions,
significant mismatches between the current supply of scientific information and the knowledge
requirements of policy makers remain (Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008a;
Shanley and Lopez, 2009). New organizational mechanisms for better linking scientific
understanding to environmental policy and natural resource management are badly needed.
Boundary organizations, organizations designed to facilitate collaboration and
information flow between the research and public policy communities, have been advanced as a
powerful means of achieving such reconciliation (Guston, 1999, 2001). However, little is known
about how to create successful boundary organizations, how they relate to their constituents, and
the types of boundary management approaches and on-the-ground strategies which work best.
Furthermore, while research universities provide an obvious place in which to house boundary
organizations, they differ significantly from the ideal environment assumed by boundary
organization theory, involving varied interest groups wielding different levels of influence and
having multiple, often competing demands. The quote introducing this article serves to illustrate
this point. Where traditionally academic research organizations have focused on the production
of basic scientific knowledge and been free from all men [sic], those involved in university-
based boundary organizations are asked to be all things to all people. This article examines the
challenges which these organizations face and addresses how, despite these challenges,
university-based boundary organizations might succeed in their goals.
Our first goal is to reconceptualize boundary organization theory by combining it with
insights and findings from other areas of organizational, science policy and science and
technology studies, thereby bringing it into greater alignment with the realities of the current
academic environment. Our second goal is to provide grounded, detailed insights into the
practice of managing boundary organizations. Though boundary organizations have received
considerable attention, our understanding of how those working in these organizations actually
facilitate collaboration between researchers and public policy makers, coordinate relationships
among them, and meet their diverse needs is meager at best. We employ an in-depth, qualitative
research approach to provide high-resolution data on the challenges faced by boundary
organization participants, the counter-posed demands and pressures which they must manage,
and the strategies, methods and negotiation tactics by which these are accomplished. Our third
goal is to develop a new heuristic model for conceptualizing boundary organizations and
boundary management in complex, dynamic environments more generally, and to provide
concrete suggestions for improving their performance.

Section one reviews the concept of boundary organizations and reconceptualizes their
functioning and management within the current university environment. Section two describes
our case study boundary organization, data and methods. Section three presents our analysis. We
characterize the social setting in which our case study operates, noting the incommensurable
demands placed on it by its constituents and their differential abilities to influence its activities.
This situation results in four sets of management tensions which boundary organization
participants must continually negotiate. We illustrate each of these tensions and analyze four
specific instances of boundary management in detail. The final section presents a new heuristic
model for understanding the organizational ecology of boundary organizations in complex,
dynamic settings and provides practical suggestions for enhancing their efficacy.

RECONCEPTUALIZING BOUNDARY ORGANIZATIONS

Boundary organizations are formal organizations designed to exist at the interface of the research
and policy communities and facilitate communication and collaboration between them (Guston,
2001: 399-401). They are characterized by three criteria. First, they provide the opportunity and
often incentives for the creation and use of boundary objects. Boundary objects are objects
(artifacts, conceptual models, classification systems, etc.) that allow members of different
communities to interact and coordinate despite their sometimes divergent perceptions of the
object (see e.g. Star and Griesemer, 1989). Second, they involve participation by actors from
both the policy and research communities, as well as professionals serving as mediators between
these groups. Third, they exist at the frontier of the science and policy communities but are
accountable to both. As originally conceived, boundary organization theory is predicated on
principal-agent theory (cf. Eisenhardt, 1989). Policy makers are considered principals seeking
goods in the form of scientific information from agents in the research community. Likewise,
researchers are viewed as principals seeking incentives from agents in the policy community.
The boundary organization sits between these principals, acting as agent to each. By providing
dual accountabilities to both communities the boundary organization operates to stabilize the
boundary between science and politics. A successful boundary organization will thus succeed in
pleasing two sets of principals and remain stable to the external forces astride the internal
stability at the actual boundary (Guston, 2001: 401).
Early studies of boundary organizations focused on their ability to link science and policy
in applied research settings (e.g., Guston, 1999; Guston et al., 2000; Keating, 2001; Cash, 2001;
Agrawala et al., 2001). Research building on these initial insights examined the discursive
practices used in boundary organizations (Davenport et al, 2003), examined whether the work
they perform could provide a disciplinary foundation for post-academic science (Hellstrom and
J acob, 2003), and integrated boundary organization research and collaboration studies (Rod and
Paliwoda, 2003). More recent work has investigated the ability of boundary organizations to
commensurate the interests of diverse groups (OMahony and Bechky, 2008), the conditions
under which they are likely to be successful (Schneider, 2008), and the tensions which arise from
delegating authority to networks mediated by a research council functioning as a pseudo
boundary organization (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008b). In-depth studies of the management of
university-based boundary organizations are absent from this literature.
1
Research by Rod and
Paliwoda (2003) and Klerkx and Leeuwis (2008b) come closest in this respect. In the following

1
Though a few studies have considered boundary organizations with ties to academia, they have not considered
boundary organizations which are housed in such environments and the complexities and challenges which result.
section we combine findings from their research with insights from organizational studies and
science and technology studies, reconceptualizing boundary organization theory to better align it
with the reality of the current university environment.

University-based Boundary Organizations

Understanding university-based boundary organizations begins with an appreciation of how the
current university environment differs from the ideal situation described by Guston (1999).
Boundary organization theory first assumes the existence of two clearly separated groups of
principals occupying distinct positions within either the scientific or policy community. While
true of the applied research settings used to develop boundary organization theory, this
assumption does not correspond to the reality of most current university settings on two counts.
First, it is problematic in assuming a clear distinction between the science and policy
communities. Universities are increasingly linked to both politics and industry (Bozeman and
Crow, 1990; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1998; 2000; Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al.,
2001). While these transitions in university culture and environment are often more complicated
than proponents indicate (e.g., Tuunainen , 2002, 2005a, 2005b; Vestergaard, 2007; Tuunainen
and Knuuttila, 2009), academic, political and industrial activates can and do overlap
considerably. As such, university-based boundary organizations are more realistically conceived
of as occupying a hybrid space where science and politics co-mingle and constituents embody
elements of both (cf. Miller (2001:481-486).
The second element of this assumption, that boundary organizations serve only two
constituents, is also problematic. This bilateral approach, characteristic of principal-agent theory,
cannot address the complexities of boundary organizations serving three or more constituents
(Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008b). However, this is often the case for hybrid organizations operating
within universities. For instance, university-based multipurpose, multidiscipline research
centers attend to the interests of the university, industry, and outside funding agencies
(Bozeman and Boardman, 2004; Boardman and Bozeman, 2007). Likewise, Tuunainen (2002,
2005a,b) has shown that the efforts of other hybrid research organizations can be complicated by
distinct accountabilities to university administration, academic departments, and private industry.
As with these examples, university-based boundary organizations are also likely to be beholden
to several different constituents. To adjust boundary organization theory to account for relations
involving three or more constituents we adopt a stakeholder perspective (see Rod and
Paliwoda,2003). This allows for analyses of boundary organizations serving more complex
arrays of constituencies, and offers a clear means of determining each stakeholders ability to
influence boundary organization activities. We return to stakeholder theory in the analysis
section.
The second major assumption of boundary organization theory is the existence of
equivalent accountabilities between the organization and each stakeholder. This is unlikely to be
true for university-based boundary organizations. University rewards systems are far from
monolithic, and decoupling of rewards and expectations can occur between and within university
administration and academic departments (Geisler, 1989: 44-49). Boundary organizations
operating in this environment will likely find that their accountabilities are skewed, with some
stakeholders better able to influence their activities and agendas than others. The likelihood of
skewed accountabilities is further increased given additional stakeholders, such as outside
funding agencies and the public policy community.
At the level of the individual researcher, the focus of boundary organization studies on
applied research settings fails to appreciate the potential for researchers to experience role-strain
as a consequence of their boundary organization affiliation. Role strain occurs when individuals
are subject to competing demands placed upon them by different groups or people with whom
they are affiliated (Box and Cotgrove, 1966). In more complex research settings such as
academia the potential for role-strain is greatly increased. For example, academic researchers
collaborating in multipurpose university research centers can experience significant levels of
role-strain when the expectations of these research centers diverge from those of researchers
home departments (Boardman, 2006). Role-strain theory thus contributes to boundary
organization studies by acknowledging the existence of role tensions at the individual level,
potentially translating into difficulties for their boundary organization in fulfilling multiple
demands. It also highlights the fact that role-strain can arise from competing expectations created
by different stakeholder groups operating within the same organization (i.e. the university).
The third assumption of boundary organization theory is that all stakeholder groups can
be satisfied and lasting stability achieved between their counter-posed demands. Existing
research fails to recognize that stakeholders can have conflicting, often incommensurable needs.
Even work recognizing the existence of conflict within boundary organizations assumes that all
stakeholder demands can be met fully and symmetrically (OMahony and Bechky, 2008). This
contravenes other research documenting the ubiquity of tensions and paradoxes in scientific
work and scientific management. This stream of research demonstrates how inconsistent
demands placed on research groups and organizations can create incommensurable sets of
tensions between desired goals (Hackett 1990, 1997, 2005). For instance, in analyzing the
scientific peer review system Hackett notes multiple tensions deriving from diverse
stakeholders, and the inconsistent demands they place on it (1997: 55). Among these is the
tension deriving from the desire to have peer review which is effective (thorough and accurate)
while also being efficient (expeditious). Maximizing one alternative necessarily diminishes the
ability to maximize the other, forcing choices among alternative outcomes. We contend that the
competing demands which stakeholders place upon a boundary organization can create similar
sets of tensions, forcing choices among incommensurable sets of outcomes, and shaping its,
research trajectory, social composition, and organizational structure.
Our final amendment to boundary organization studies is methodological rather than
conceptual. Existing research fails to analyze the process of boundary management in sufficient
detail. First, there has been insufficient attention paid to the temporal dimensions of boundary
management. Boundary management tends to be treated as an act rather than a process, and as a
result analyzed in terms of idealized relationships between the boundary organization and its
stakeholders (c.f. Miller, 2001: 481-486). Grounded considerations of how boundary
management decisions are actually made amid changing circumstances are severely lacking.
Second, in addition to coordinating relations among stakeholders, boundary management
involves making strategic decisions about the internal structure and inner workings of the
boundary organization itself. To date, these internal elements of boundary management have
gone unconsidered. In sum, research has fallen short on explaining what it means to manage the
boundary (McNie, 2007: 31-32). A finer degree of empirical resolution is needed. To this end
we apply an in-depth, qualitative research approach to examine the processes of boundary
management over time. We also consider both internal and external forms of boundary
management.
Taken together, our readjustment of boundary organization theory for the university
environment leads to a fundamental reconceptualization of boundary organizations and boundary
management. It suggests that university-based boundary organizations will exist in a hybrid
space in which they are likely to serve highly heterogeneous stakeholder groups embodying
elements of both science and politics. These stakeholders, in turn, wield differential abilities to
influence the activities and goals of the boundary organization, shaping both its internal structure
and its management of relations among its stakeholders. In this context boundary management is
not the act of stabilizing the boundary between abstract sets of principals in either the science
and policy domains. Rather, it is a continuous process of negotiating multiple tensions deriving
from inconsistent sets of demands placed on the boundary organization by multiple, diverse
stakeholders. This perspective, in tandem with detailed qualitative data, allows for an
examination of boundary management over time. We test the utility of this model through our
analysis, demonstrating that this perspective and research approach lend a measure of
verisimilitude to boundary organization studies, allowing for more dynamic analyses of their
functioning, and providing a valuable framework for examining boundary management
processes in complex institutional environments more generally.

CASE STUDY AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

Arizona State Universitys Decision Center for a Desert City (DCDC) serves as our case study.
Funded in 2004 through the U.S. National Science Foundations program on Decision Making
Under Uncertainty, DCDC was explicitly designed as a boundary organization with the goals of
contributing to basic research on decision making under uncertain conditions while also working
closely with resource managers and policy makers to enhance long-term decision making about
water resources in an arid, rapidly growing metropolitan area. DCDC meets the criteria for a
boundary organization. It (1) involves collaborations between scientists and policy makers, (2)
produces boundary objects which facilitate communication between these groups, and (3)
participants have specific accountabilities to both the scientific and policy communities. DCDC
is a strategic site for understanding boundary organizations in the contemporary university
context because it is housed in Arizona State University, a university transforming itself along
the lines identified by science and technology studies. ASU leaders contend that the traditional
universities cannot adequately respond to the knowledge demands of the 21
st
century (e.g. Crow,
2007) and have initiated the creation of a New American University emphasizing the practical
use of the knowledge it produces, embracing interdisciplinarity, and speaking to the information
needs of its local community (http://newamericanuniversity.asu.edu).

Data and Methods

Data for this study are drawn from in-depth interviews and documentary analysis. A total of 33
interviews were conducted from August 2007 through March 2008. Of these, seventeen were
with DCDC leaders, research scientists and staff, and sixteen with affiliated water managers and
policy makers. Each interview session lasted between forty-five and ninety minutes. Our
sampling strategy involved identifying and interviewing multiple key informants from diverse
perspectives within DCDC and the water policy community (Kumar et al. 1993), followed by
snowball sampling. This allowed for identification of individuals most knowledgeable about
DCDC and its interaction with the policy community, as well as for an appreciation of the
diversity of their experiences and opinions. Interview questions were designed to capture (1)
respondents opinions about and experiences with DCDC boundary work, (2) their opinions
about science-policy relations more generally, and (3) suggestions as to how the DCDC might
better facilitate interaction among its stakeholders. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.
To compliment, ground, and cross-validate our interview data, we gathered and analyzed
all important documents related to DCDCs functioning and assessment. These included
proposals, proposal addendums, annual progress reports, external assessments, internal memos,
strategic planning documents, DCDC newsletters, and the DCDC website. In all, we analyzed
twenty-two documents. Additionally, we regularly visited DCDC, observing its operations and
engaging in formal ethnographic observations of conferences and research briefings involving
members of both the research and public policy communities. All interview, documentary, and
observational data were analyzed using ethnographic content analysis, an iterative, reflexive
method designed to uncover meaningful concepts and variables and verify relationships among
them (Altheide, 1996). This method was facilitated by the use of qualitative analysis programs
(AtlasTI and QWeftQDA) used to systematize subject coding, sort and index interviews,
observations, and documents, and allow for word searches across documents. Thematic coding
categories were collapsed or expanded according to their relevance as coding progressed. The
authors coded all data independently, cross-checking results to test for inter-coder reliability.

ANALYSIS

Our analysis proceeds in three parts. We first describe the competing demands of DCDC
stakeholders and the relative ability of each to demand that its needs receive priority over those
of others. Second, we describe and empirically illustrate four boundary management tensions
resulting from these competing demands. Finally,, we detail four specific instances of internal
and external boundary management, describing strategies used by DCDC leaders to meet their
stakeholders competing demands and demonstrating the importance of also adjusting the
organizational structure and research focus of the boundary organization in response to these
tensions and divergent pressure from stakeholders.
DCDC Stakeholders
DCDC serves four distinct stakeholders desiring different outcomes and wielding differential
abilities to demand that their needs receive priority. To assess stakeholder influence on boundary
organization activities we adopt Mitchell et al.s (1997) model of stakeholder saliency.
Stakeholder salience refers to the degree to which the desires of some stakeholders are given
priority over those of others as determined by the extent to which each is viewed as powerful,
legitimate, and their claims urgent. Power is the extent to which a stakeholder can gain access
to coercive, utilitarian, or normative means, to impose its will in the relationship (p.865).
Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity [i.e.
stakeholder] are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of
norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (p.866). Urgency is (1) when a relationship or claim is
of a time-sensitive nature and (2) when that relationship or claim is important or critical to the
stakeholder (p.867). These three attributes combine to produce a typology of seven possible
types of stakeholders (See Appendix A). Stakeholder salience is predicted to be low when only
one attribute is believed to exist, moderate where two are believed to exist, and high where all
three are present. DCDCs four stakeholders and their respective stakeholder types are as
follows:

1) The New American University is DCDCs first stakeholder, represented by top level
university administration. Since its inception DCDC has been viewed as an exemplar of
the vision towards which ASU is striving, and is one of the universitys flagship
organizations. ASU leaders have a vested interest in its success. The New American
University expects DCDC to produce high quality, interdisciplinary basic research while
also providing the water policy community with information relevant to its needs.
Stakeholder type: Top level university administrators working towards the New
American University are certainly considered legitimate. However, in terms of formal
power administrators have relatively little ability to influence DCDC research or the
careers of individual researchers, and their demands are relatively non-urgent. The New
American University is a discretionary stakeholder.
2) The Academic Research Community is DCDCs second stakeholder. Specifically, this
refers to the academic departments within the university providing full time appointments
to DCDC researchers. More broadly, it includes their professional societies and academic
research networks. The academic community expects DCDC affiliated researchers to
produce traditional academic outcomes in the form of basic research contributions to
home disciplines.
Stakeholder type: The academic community is viewed as legitimate. Unlike university
administrators, the academic community has real power to affect the research and career
trajectories of DCDC researchers. The demands of the academic community are urgent in
that DCDC members must meet them in a timely manner to ensure their own career
success. The academic community is a definitive stakeholder.
3) The Water Policy and Management Community is DCDCs third stakeholder. This
includes city-level water managers and water policy makers, and those with broader
political jurisdictions such as representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation. This
policy community thus spans multiple jurisdictional scales. For the purposes of this study
we refer to this broad group collectively as the water policy community. The water
policy community expects DCDC to produce information of relevance to their needs as
water managers, policy makers, and heuristic devices for conceptualizing alternative
water management decisions.
Stakeholder type: The demands of water policy community are viewed as legitimate. Its
demands are also the most urgent as it requires information at relatively short timescales.
However, the water policy and management community has relatively little power to
sanction DCDC if their demands are not met. The policy community is a dependant
stakeholder.
i

4) The National Science Foundation is DCDCs final stakeholder. It is the primary
funding body for the organization and regularly conducts formal assessments of its
progress. The goal of NSFs Decision Making Under Uncertainty program is to improve
understanding of decision making processes under climatic change and other uncertain
long-term environmental changes. It primarily expects DCDC to produce
interdisciplinary basic research contributing to understanding of these issues, and
secondarily to provide relevant information to the water policy community.
Stakeholder type: As DCDCs primary funding body, NSF is viewed as legitimate and it
also wields real power as it may discontinue funding should DCDC not meet its
mandates. The outcomes which NSF desires from DCDC are also urgent in that regularly
scheduled updates are needed to maintain funding and basic academic research is
expected to be produced at a regular pace. NSF is a definitive stakeholder.
Table 1 summarizes these different stakeholders relative levels of power, legitimacy and
urgency and relates them to their stakeholder types. While stakeholder theory allows for the
identification of three levels of salience, for our purposes we treat each stakeholder types as
having either high or low salience.
[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Four Management Tensions
DCDC stakeholders demands diverge in four main ways: 1) the extent to which DCDC research
is expected to be interdisciplinary, 2) the rate at which information is expected to be produced, 3)
to the relative focus of DCDC research on basic as opposed to applied knowledge production,
and 4) the degree of decision latitude expected of researchers (Table 2). These divergences result
in four management tensions which boundary organizational leaders must continuously
negotiate. Each tension is outlined in turn, and exemplified with illustrative quotes.
[INSERT TABLE TWO ABOUT HERE]
Tension One: Disciplinarity versus Interdisciplinarity [CONSIDER RE-ARRANGING]
The first tension is between providing discipline specific versus interdisciplinary research
products. NSF explicitly requires that all Decision Making Under Uncertainty projects maintain
an interdisciplinary approach. Similarly, ASUs vision of the New American University
emphasizes interdisciplinarity. However, interdisciplinarity runs contrary to the traditional
scientific rewards system and thus the desires of the academic community. The water policy
community is indifferent regarding interdisciplinarity, so long as research speaks to their
resource management needs.
the New American University encourages teaching and research that is interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary,
and post-disciplinary, leading, where appropriate, to a convergence of disciplines, an approach that might be
more accurately described as intellectual fusion (ASU report, emphasis in original).
There is some [disciplinary integration], I would say. I think there could be more. But, again, it goes back to the
scientific awards system. Unless theres a paper being published, it doesnt necessarily facilitate that. So I think
part of the challenge is just the scientific awards system which is just above and beyond what DCDC can
control. (DCDC research scientist)

Tension Two: Long-term versus Real-time Knowledge Production
The second tension is between short-term versus long-term knowledge production. The policy
community desires DCDC to supply real time information specific to rapidly changing
circumstances. In contrast, the academic community desires research outcomes which typically
take longer periods of time to realize, involving the creation and maintenance of long-term
projects, papers and collaborations. The New American University desires DCDC to work at
both time scales, providing policy makers with real time information while building long-term
projects generating traditional academic publications. NSF has noted the need for the production
of both real time and long-term research, though in DCDC reviews it has emphasized the
production of long-term, basic science projects over short-term, policy relevant projects.
The people who make real-world management and policy decisions work on a different time scale than
many of my colleagues and I work on. We work in months and years to figure out things. They need to
know what's going on next week. (DCDC leader)
The timescale issue, the [DCDC water] model flow, the groundwater models are [on] monthly, yearly time
increments, where our actual distribution system and wells operate on a minute-by-minute basis. (City
water manager)
Tension Three: Basic versus Applied Research
The third tension is between producing basic versus applied research. The policy community
desires applied research speaking to their resource management needs. The academic community
desires the opposite, valuing basic contributions to home disciplines. The New American
Universitys twin goals of academic excellence and community embeddedness lead it to value
both basic and applied research. NSFs DMUU protocol also calls for producing both basic and
applied research, but in DCDC reviews has expressed a preference for basic over applied
research.
Your pressure is to publish and so I think youre just inherently going to come up with different products
academics have to look at things theoretically, especially to get published we [policy makers] got [sic]
politics and you can have the best theoretical model [laughs], [but]its applicability to the real world is always
going to be inherently limited. (City water manager)
Often times its [applied research] not done because its not part of our reward system. We dont really get
rewarded in the academic institutions for disseminating the information, despite the claims that its important
on the behalf of the NSF and the New American University. (DCDC research scientist)
Tension Four: Autonomy versus Consultancy
The final tension is between autonomy versus consultancy. The traditional model of academic
research is one of high autonomy, and remains the dominant professional orientation within
academia. Meeting policy makers needs, however, necessarily involves some level of
consultancy. As the New American University, ASU expects DCDC to fill both roles. This is
also the stated goal of the National Science Foundations DMUU protocol, but in DCDC reviews
the agency has expressed a preference for traditional academic practice.
They [the policy community] keep telling us what youre doing, were not really interested in it, they
keep telling us that we should be doing a needs assessment. We ought to go out and ask themall what
they need and then meet their needs. Thats what consultants do (DCDC research scientist)
Research activities that the [resource] managers would find interesting, a lot of us would consider
consulting research researchers have a very much of a pure science an empirical collect data,
investigate interesting scientific questions point of view. But this idea of doing science directly in support
of policy isnt something that most people are interested in. (DCDC research scientist)
These four management tensions derive from the divergent demands which stakeholders of
different salience levels place on the boundary organization. In the next section we show how
DCDC leaders have managed these tensions over time.
Meandering the Line: Boundary Management
Boundary management is typically considered to be the process of coordinating and facilitating
collaborations and interactions between stakeholders (OMahony and Bechky, 2008: 425).
However, as noted above, boundary management also requires making strategic decisions about
the internal structure of the organization and its research focus. It is thus the dual process of
managing relations among stakeholders while also managing the structure and inner workings of
the organization itself. These internal and external elements of boundary management occur in
parallel and interact with one another. Here we analyze four instances of boundary management
in relation to stakeholders divergent demands and their differential levels of saliency. Internally,
we examine how DCDCs organizational structure and research focus has been managed over
time. Externally, we analyze the construction of DCDCs flagship boundary object and the
organizations efforts to achieve interdisciplinarity. In so doing we show how these demands and
saliencies shape both the inner workings of the organization and their ability to facilitate
stakeholder interactions. We further demonstrate boundary management to be an ongoing,
adaptive process of navigating these dynamic tensions over time.
Changes in Organizational Structure
DCDC was originally designed with a governance structure aimed at creating dual
accountability to, and oversight by, the academic and policy communities. This dual
accountability was assured by creating two discrete governance bodies. The first, the External
Advisory Council, was comprised of eight high-profile academicians. The second, the
Stakeholder Advisory Council, consisted of seven water managers and policy makers at the
city, tribal and regional levels. From the original proposal,
The DCDC management plan is aimed squarely at the timely flow of new knowledge and tools related to
decision making under uncertainty associated with climate change and variability. To achieve this goal, the
organizational structure of the Center will emphasize interdisciplinary perspectives, openness to multiple,
often competing, approaches, and close interaction among academics, practitioners, and citizenry an
endeavor of this scale and complexity requires clear lines of responsibility and an adequate infrastructure.
(Pp.16)

This structure was designed to stabilize relations among stakeholders and ensure the
representation of both academicians and policy makers in DCDC decisions. However, salience
differentials among stakeholders produced very different results.
On May 12, 2005, DCDC received its first review from its joint governance body.
Overall, the center was praised for its well-conceived plan. The Stakeholder Advisory Council,
however, was less enthusiastic about DCDC outreach activities, noting,

There needs to be a more explicit and systematic way of soliciting ideas from local water providers,
regulators and decision-makers concerning what kinds of information/research they would most like to see.
This is important to ensure research is demand-driven (Pp. 2, our emphasis).

The review also called for assessments of which water-related decisions were most important to
the policy community, a greater appreciation of the political climate of water management, and
the development of more credible boundary objects.
The review caused immediate difficulties for DCDC leaders, who quickly came under
pressure from NSF reviewers during their first site visit. Worried that DCDC research could
become unduly influenced by the Stakeholder Advisory Council, reviewers instead
recommending it primarily focus on basic science. As one DCDC leader said,

It was a colossal disaster, a mess. Those stakeholders said we want to know what youre doing for us
now. It was absolutely clear that they wanted us to do low level applied research consulting projects. NSF
hears that and says wow, what did we get ourselves into? and we took a serious beating that first year I
remember [an academic researcher] got up and the [the Stakeholder Advisory Council] just crucified him.
It was at that moment that I realized that the money came from NSF and NSF is interested in refereed
journal articles.
And another,
Part of it is we got some pushback from the NSF frankly, whats happened is we shifted the advisory
committee When we originally constituted it, it was half [policy] community people and half scientists,
and NSF reacted poorly to that. We had [local stakeholder X] and [local stakeholder Y], we had a bunch of
really good local people and we basically replaced themwith a fully science advisory group. Theres been
some pushback from NSF on this.
In short, DCDC leaders decided to respond to pressure from NSF by altering the composition of
their governance body. Within a month the Stakeholder Advisory Council was disbanded while
the External Advisory Council remained, now including a few of the more regionally focused,
academically oriented Stakeholder Council members. Within four months a second round of re-
shuffling occurred, removing the remaining Stakeholder Council members and replacing them
too with academicians.
Having made concessions to one of their most salient stakeholders, DCDC leaders
developed alternate strategies for incorporating the water policy communitys perspective. This
first involved hiring a well known water policy expert to act as liaison between DCDC and the
water policy community.

Hes a boundary player. Classic He has a Ph.D., hes done some publishing. Hes spent his life as a
bureaucrat in the [City of Phoenix] Department of Water Resources. He has a rolodex thats very thick
we see him as a facilitator of relationships, of networks He was hired to do that, he does that explicitly.

According to DCDC leaders this liaison has been critical for building relationships with the
water policy community and providing rapid feedback from policy makers. DCDC also worked
to build these connections by supplying city water departments with graduate interns and hosting
regular research symposiums, called Water and Climate Briefings, involving both academicians
and the policy community. In these ways DCDC remained attuned to policy makers desires and
orientations while allowing formal power to remain in the hands of NSF and the academic
community.
In sum, DCDC leaders were forced to make important decisions regarding its governance
structure due to the conflicting demands of its stakeholders. They resolved this conflict by
making concessions to one of its most powerful stakeholders. However, meeting the policy
communities needs and maintaining credibility required alternate means of retaining their
perspective. By creating a liaison position, employing interns and holding joint symposiums
DCDC managed to maintain its accountability to policy makers while assuaging the NSFs
concerns. While this concession might be viewed as moving away from the dual accountability
assumed by boundary organization theory, it is doubtful if DCDC could otherwise have pleased
any stakeholder given the stalemates between equally valid advisory groups. There was also the
real potential for funding to be cut were leaders not willing to acquiesce. In reconstructing the
organization and finding alternate means for incorporating the policy communities needs and
opinions DCDC thus managed to maintain its funding while remaining relevant and accountable
to less salient stakeholders. In doing so they effectively managed the tension between autonomy
and consultancy, and between basic and applied research.

Shifting Research Focus
Concomitant with changes in DCDCs organizational structure was a shift in research
focus. DCDC leaders initially anticipated working on basic and applied research simultaneously
and putting in equal effort on both.
We propose to build a boundary organization that bridges research on climatology, vulnerability analysis,
resilience theory, and decision science with the institutions and individuals making water-management
decisions in the American West. The overarching aim is to reduce vulnerability to environmental risk by
improving the adaptive capacity to prepare for and respond to uncertain climate events and their effects.
(Original proposal, Pp. 2)

Four years later perceptions differed. There had been steady pressure from NSF and colleagues
in academic departments to produce traditional academic products. Though significant
investments continued to be made in supplying information to the policy community, DCDC
members now acknowledged that their main focus was on basic science. This sentiment was
ubiquitous among interviewees. As voiced by one,

I think DCDC has stayed more academic and I even see the tension there where [DCDC leaders] will try to be more
applied and NSF will come in and think that were being too applied. We need to be more scientific and so theres
this tug and push and pull to go back and forth (DCDC research scientist)
When asked why DCDC had not attempted to publish a finding of practical use in water
conservation, a researcher replied,
Because the world is huge, and were still basic science. If I publish an article [on whether or not to use a
swimming pool cover], Id have to publish it in the Wal-Mart J ournal. Im not going to publish it anywhere
NSFs going to care about. So youre driven by that, not just by the NSF but by faculty and collegial
pressure not to really do it from that end It makes it hard. (DCDC research scientist)
As these excerpts demonstrate, while DCDC was initially designed to work equally on basic
science and policy, its priorities temporarily shifted over time in the direction of basic science.
These quotes clearly illustrate the reason for this shift: DCDCs most salient stakeholders, the
National Science Foundation and the academic community, demanded it. While still working to
meet the needs of the policy community and the directives of the New American University,
DCDC has consistently managed the tension between basic science and applied research by
erring on the side of its most salient stakeholders.
By all reports DCDC has now demonstrated its capacity for producing high-quality basic
science. Having satisfied this imperative, leaders have turned to developing innovative ways to
produce policy relevant research while simultaneously addressing the intellectual interests of the
academic community and NSF. For instance, by developing research that addressed the scales
relevant to both the academic and policy communities, thus striking a profitable balance between
autonomy and consultancy.

Keep in mind that we didnt take the cheap route of doing consulting work We could not do that with
the NSF mandate and Ive argued that isnt the way a university -- why should we replicate whats already
taking place in the private sector? We need to think ahead about bigger issues. We need to think at
regional scale, we need to think at longer time scales. We need to think about bigger [policy related] issues
like climate change and the demographic change.
Effectively managing DCDCs research focus involved an initial period in which the demands of
NSF and the academic community were prioritized over the needs of less salient stakeholders
(the policy community and the New American University), indicating the importance of strategic
timing for successfully meeting the needs of all stakeholders. It also involved finding novel ways
in which DCDC research could address the needs of both sets of groups.

Boundary Object Negotiations
Boundary objects are a primary point of interface between boundary organizations and
stakeholders, examining their construction thus provides a valuable window into external forms
of boundary management. The construction of DCDCs central boundary object involved
managing the tensions between autonomy and consultancy and between long-term and short-
term knowledge production. It also demonstrates the necessity of continually adapting boundary
management strategies to successfully meet stakeholder demands.
From its inception, a primary DCDC goal was to construct a comprehensive,
interdisciplinary model of the coupled human-natural system, to act as a boundary object (Pp. 7,
Original proposal). Once constructed, the model was to be assessed by policy makers to enhance
its use in informing water policy decisions. Early attempts at model construction were grounded
in agent-based modeling
ii
. However the construction was interrupted when, in its first review of
the center the External Advisory Committee/Stakeholder Advisory Council failed to see its
relevance for practical decision making.

While agent-based modeling [ABM] certainly has potential uses, the overall objectives and value in
employing ABM are not clearThose developing it need to display a better sense of how their modeling
results might actually relate to those making decisions at a higher level within a thicket of political,
economic and legal restraints. How might these decision makers use or be informed by modeling results?
(Pp. 1).
DCDC leaders and researchers responded by forgoing the agent-based approach and opting
instead to construct WaterSim. WaterSim is a regional-scale simulation model of water supply
and demand for the Phoenix Metropolitan region which integrates information about climate,
land use, and population growth to examine future water use scenarios.
Shifting to WaterSim was a calculated choice driven by several factors. DCDC leaders
felt that the regional focus of the model was sufficiently broad-scale and long-term to begin
realistically assessing water management scenarios under climatic uncertainty, a central
component of DCDCs mission. WaterSim also offered a valuable means by which to study how
policy community members interact with and assess boundary objects. Finally, it was hoped that
by representing the regional water system as objectively as possible DCDC could provide a
politically neutral means of assessing potential water policy scenarios. When asked how DCDC
managed the demands of its competing stakeholders in relation to WaterSim, one designer
explained,

with WaterSim were not taking a side on the issue ... We simply do our best to present the information
and we acknowledge whats there and whats not there. The model itself is built to be as transparent as
possible. You can go into the model and you can look at the assumptions And so the accountability to
the policy community is to say, basically, were neutral on the policy decisions here.

DCDC modelers worked largely on their own with little input from the policy community
when developing the initial version of WaterSim. In consultation with the External Advisory
Council and per the original DCDC proposal, it was decided to study policy makers perceptions
and evaluation of the model from a social science perspective. It was hoped that this would allow
for an enhanced understanding of decision processes among policy makers and for monitoring
the progression of the model over time. The research design for the study involved organizing
local policy community members into focus groups. A professional facilitator then led each
group through a demonstration of WaterSim, asking their opinions about the model through a
prearranged set of questions.
The study did not go as planned and resulted in some animosity by the policy community.
Policy community members balked at being used as test subjects and resented what they felt to
be an overly structured assessment. Rather than being able to ask the questions they felt were
most relevant, they were constrained for methodological purposes to answering only questions
asked by the facilitator. A DCDC PI recounted,

By overly orchestrating these scientific experiments I dont think they were able to respond to some of the
scenarios they saw, [or] to fully ask all the questions they wanted to ask I think they went away
dissatisfied. I mean you try to do two things at the same time, set up a scientific experiment so that you
collect real social science data [and] trying to build friends and influence people. I think we did the former
and missed out on the latter.

Or as stated by a city water manager,

Well, nobody was involved. No one was ever asked, Would a tool like this be useful to you?, until after it
was developed And when they were finally brought in, it was a controlled experiment where they really
couldnt interact with it. I wouldnt call that engagement.
In addition to dissatisfaction with their focus group experiences, the policy community was also
concerned about WaterSim for several other reasons. First, WaterSim operated at a broader
geographic and longer temporal scale than was useful in daily management. Second, policy
makers could not adequately interrogate the models assumptions regarding key parameters.
Third, some worried that they could come under fire if the models predictions conflicted with
their claims about local water availability. In short, the model lacked relevance, was of unknown
credibility, and lacked legitimacy because policy makers were not involved in the design process
(Cash et al., 2003).
The water policy communitys lack of enthusiasm for WaterSim was particularly
troubling since other stakeholders applauded the model. As a DCDC PI stated,

[Top level ASU administrators] loved it. The great irony and the struggle is that the general public loves it,
the newspaper likes it, we bring opinion leaders from the community in, they look at it, nod, it makes sense.
You bring the water managers in and they think, I cant use this at all. [We received] negative
feedback from the decision makers but positive feedback from NSF.
While DCDCs most salient stakeholders endorsed WaterSim, the policy community was
unimpressed and agitated. The strategic management question was how to modify WaterSim to
be useful to the policy community while maintaining the basic structure and foci desired by other
stakeholders. DCDC leaders met this challenge using a two-pronged approach. They began by
holding a second workshop. This time water managers and policy makers were encouraged
question WaterSims assumptions and capabilities, and model designers were on hand to provide
answers. Doing so allowed DCDC to regain legitimacy in the eyes of the policy community and
improve perceptions of the models credibility. DCDC modelers then worked on enhancing
WaterSims salience by developing downsized modules allowing simulations for specific
political jurisdictions. Since these changes perceptions of WaterSim in the policy community
have improved significantly, with some cities working jointly with DCDC modelers to develop
customized versions of WaterSim.
As with changes in DCDCs organizational structure and research focus, the negotiation
and development of WaterSim reveals specific aspects of boundary management. In managing
the development of the model DCDC leaders chose to make decisions regarding two tensions.
These relate to the degree of decision latitude and the time scale on which research focuses. They
managed these tensions by first focusing on maintaining their autonomy, designing WaterSim to
operate at the broad spatial and long-term temporal scales of greatest interest to academic
researchers. After the model gained the approval from their most salient stakeholders (NSF and
the academic community), DCDC engaged with policy makers to develop customizable models
of WaterSim at scales most salient to each.

The (Continuing) Challenge of Achieving Interdisciplinarity

All NSF funded DMUU centers are supposed to be organized around interdisciplinary
collaborative groups producing new knowledge, information, and tools related to decision
making under uncertainty associated with climate change and related environmental risks.
Interdisciplinary collaboration was viewed as a prerequisite for developing strategies capable of
informing complex decision making under uncertainty. This perspective mirrors that of the New
American University, with its focus on the need for disciplinary fusion to solve applied
problems. DCDC leaders have also embraced this orientation, developing and testing several
strategies for achieving disciplinary integration. However, achieving integration has proven to be
one of DCDCs biggest external boundary management challenges due to pressures from the
academic community vis--vis its traditional rewards system and related time constraints on
faculty.
DCDC was originally structured around four knowledge areas: Climate Science,
Vulnerability Analysis and Resilience Theory, Decision Science, and Science and Technology
Policy Analysis. These areas were to be integrated via an assessment framework in which an
interdisciplinary model of human-natural systems would be built, formal decision models
constructed, and possible future climate scenarios developed. Local policy makers would then
evaluate the processes by which this information was created and consider potential future water
policy decisions (Original proposal, pp 3-7). It was hoped that disciplinary integration could be
achieved through such assessments. However, an NSF review conducted prior to project funding
expressed some concern as to how integration would be facilitated, noting a lack of a clear
means for disciplinary integration as a potential weakness in the DCDC research plan (NSF
review #1, Pp. 2).
DCDC leaders took a multi-faceted approach to catalyze interdisciplinarity by first
developing the Water and Climate Briefings, an ongoing series of presentations on water issues
designed to build connectivity between research areas. Second, they worked to incentivize
disciplinary integration by prioritizing it when funding internal projects. Third, they held regular
meetings among leaders of each knowledge area to maximize communication and collaboration.
Finally, DCDC leaders worked to more clearly articulate how knowledge areas related to one
another and to decision tools produced by DCDC.
However, despite best efforts, achieving sustained integration remains an enduring
challenge. Researchers instead tended to self-organize around common disciplinary expertise and
research problems rather than spanning disciplinary boundaries.

Well, we had this very nicely compartmentalized group of teams With few exceptions, those teams
dont exist anymore People have just sort of reorganized themselves in terms of interests and
opportunities. (DCDC PI)

DCDC research scientists agreed that although concerted efforts at integration were being
attempted, the actual degree to which it was achieved remained mild. They consistently noted
two barriers to interdisciplinary collaborations. First, it was often uncertain how interdisciplinary
contributions would be remunerated by home departments and discipline specific journals.

I am an interdisciplinary scientist but my faculty position is in the department of geography, so Im
evaluated by my geography colleagues as though I were a faculty member in geography. (DCDC research
scientist)
Second, interdisciplinary collaborations typically take more effort and time to achieve success,
resulting in less time for discipline specific projects with greater potential payoffs.

There is overhead for interaction. You have to somehow balance out the efforts youre putting in to actually
doing [a] high-quality, intellectually stimulating piece of work. And on top of that, if you have to interact
constantly, then that is an overhead as well and often the pay-offs of doing the work is critical You
know, its, its a hard balancing act and all the different enterprises which we have, and the fact is that
everybody is so terribly busy, incredibly busy at each point in their daily life (DCDC research scientist)

In both cases barriers to effective interdisciplinarity resulted from demands and pressures placed
upon researchers by the academic community. At the level of the individual researcher
incommensurable demands between the academic community and the boundary organization
created significant role strain. Researchers responded by aligning their work with the academic
rewards system, which ultimately governs their future career opportunities. This strategy, in turn,
reduces the ability of the boundary organization to meet stakeholder demands. Role strain at the
individual level thus creates challenges at the organizational level. Achieving integration under
these conditions is an ongoing challenge. In a recent review (2007: pp 2) NSF again noted a lack
of significant integration, but realized that this is not unexpected given the newness of the
project. In response DCDC leaders developed and refined the conceptual framework of the
organization to better incorporate formal and informal mechanisms for knowledge integration. It
is hoped that this will promote greater interdisciplinarity.

DISCUSSION AND WAYS FORWARD

Humanity is currently facing complex environmental problems with profound implications for
our future well-being. We urgently need new organizational mechanisms for better linking
scientific understanding of these problems to environmental policy and natural resource
management. While boundary organizations housed in research universities offer a potentially
powerful means of linking science to action, these organizations have received little attention.
This study has contributed to our understanding of these organizations through an in-depth
investigation of a university-based boundary organization, examining the groups which it serves,
the conflicting demands they place on the organization, and how relations among these groups
are managed. This section relates our findings and then uses them to illustrate our conceptual
model of boundary management.
A number of well-grounded findings emerge from this analysis. First, we have
demonstrated that boundary management in a university-based boundary organization is an
active, dynamic process is which continuous negotiation between conflicting demands is the rule
rather than the exception. Second, differences in stakeholders relative levels of salience
structure the negotiation process, shaping decisions made by organizational leaders. Third,
boundary management is a two-fold process of coordinating relations among stakeholders while
simultaneously adjusting the social composition, organizational structure and research focus of
the organization. Fourth, rewards systems matter at both the level of the organization and the
individual researcher, with divergences in these rewards systems creating the potential for nested
sets of tensions and role-strains. Fifth, while some of the tensions arising from conflicting
stakeholder demands can be effectively commensurated through adaptive management, the
conflicting demands of some stakeholders are likely to be fundamentally incommensurable.

Landscapes of Tensions

Considered in tandem, data and theory presented in this article contribute to a new
conceptualization of boundary organizations and boundary management applicable to complex,
dynamic institutional environments. We term this the Landscape of Tensions Model. It is
represented graphically in Figure 1.It retains the strengths of the original theory of boundary
organizations while achieving greater alignment with the on-the-ground reality of boundary
management in complex environments. It differs from past conceptualizations of boundary
organizations in several important ways. Foremost, where the original theory of boundary
organizations assumes a clear distinction between the domains of science and policy, we
follow Miller (2001: 488-495) in maintaining that university-based boundary organizations are
best conceived of as working within a hybrid space where the activities of science and politics
co-mingle significantly. As such, it is unrealistic to view boundary management as the act of
achieving stability between science and policy. Instead, boundary management should be
analyzed as a process of reconciling multiple tensions among the demands of stakeholders whose
actions, desires and orientations often defy this simplistic dichotomy. The tension illustrated in
Figure 1 is that between the production of applied versus basic knowledge, with knowledge
production viewed as occurring along a continuum between the ideal-typical polarities of basic
and applied science. Each of the other three tensions could be similarly conceptualized.
Another important distinction of our model is its explicit focus on boundary management
as a dynamic process, highlighting the temporal dimension of this activity. Based on our findings
we contend that boundary organizations operating in complex institutional envrionmentsare
unlikely to attain permanent stability. Rather, boundary management is an ongoing process of
negotiating the multiple tensions which ensue from divergent demands. Figure 1 illustrates this
ongoing process in relation to DCDCs management of the tension between basic and applied
research. By managing this tension differently at different times it became possible to eventually
meet the needs of all four stakeholders. Where most existing research tends to treat boundary
management as an act, we have shown it to be a fluid process of managing multiple sets of
tensions. In Figure 1 the temporal dimension of boundary management is shown by the
movement of the organization in relation to the axis labeled time.
The model also uses a stakeholder perspective to explicitly consider the actual groups and
organizations served by the boundary organization. Traditional boundary organization theory
frames constituents abstractly as principals operating in either the scientific or policy
domains. These terms are vague and often used in ways that obscure relations among the
organization and its stakeholders. For instance, the New American University is designed to
foster scientific research but also to engage with and inform policy makers. Thus it is thus
unclear to which domain this principal belongs and where the boundary lies. By treating
constituents as stakeholders with multiple interests it becomes possible to analyze differences in
the demands which they place on the organization more concretely. In Figure 1 stakeholders
positions along the horizontal axis represent their demands as they relate to the ideal polarities of
basic versus applied knowledge production.
Additionally, utilizing a stakeholder perspective brings the issues of conflict and
competition to the foreground of boundary organization studies. Due to the focus of earlier work
on achieving stability, issues of conflict went largely unconsidered. However, as is the case with
boundary work in the intellectual arena (Gieryn 1999; Hilgartner 2000), organizational forms of
boundary management are shaped by the relative saliency of those involved. In our study this is
exemplified by the decisions of organizational leaders to shift the composition of DCDCs
governance body and its research focus in response to pressure from their most salient
stakeholders. By allowing for assessments of stakeholders relative levels of salience the model
is better attuned to reality, and can also be more readily connected to other perspectives
emphasizing the importance of power in organizational decision making, such as resource
dependency theory. In Figure 1 stakeholders relative ability to demand salience is indicated by
their stakeholder type. The response of the organization to these differential levels of salience is
represented by the lateral movement of the organization across the hybrid space within the
landscape of tensions.
Lastly, our model pays explicit attention to the fact that different levels within the same
organization can demand different outcomes from boundary organizations and contribute to the
tensions which must be managed. Cash (2001) found that boundary organizations can stabilize
relations between bureaucratic strata within the same organization. The opposite phenomenon
also exists. The New American University desires different things from DCDC than do academic
departments. As shown here, and as confirmed by others (Boardman and Bozeman, 2007), this
can cause tensions at the level of the organization and role-strain for the individual researcher,
affecting DCDCs ability to perform boundary management. In Figure 1 stakeholders operating
at different levels within the same organization are represented by the size of the stakeholder.

Enhancing the Efficacy of Boundary Organizations in Complex, Dynamic Environments
Our study has important implications for the practice of boundary management in complex
institutional environments. First, boundary management should not be viewed as an
achievement, but as an ongoing process of negotiation between the organization and its
stakeholders. Accomplishing stability is a tenuous operation achieved only periodically in
relation to changing organizational environments, resource availabilities, and stakeholder
demands. Whatever stability the boundary organization creates will likely be temporary and in
relation to specific issues.
Second, boundary management is not about managing relations among abstract science
and policy communities, but about meeting the demands of specific stakeholders. Boundary
organizations exist at the nexus of complex, often incommensurable sets of tensions. Effective
boundary management requires identifying these tensions and working to manage each given
changing circumstances. To this end, boundary managers should organize focus groups with
each stakeholder to examine what it desires and expects. These focus groups should be
conducted at regular intervals beginning with the inception of the organization. This will allow
boundary managers to better understand the tensions they must manage and the environment in
which they operate. It will also increase the legitimacy of the boundary organization in the eyes
of stakeholders.
Third, the existence of equivalent pressures, accountabilities and incentives among
stakeholders will be rare, and may only coincide periodically. As a result, it will be necessary to
manage tensions differently at different points in time. Though salience differentials shape
boundary organization activities, these too are things to be managed rather than seen as
deterministic forces which cannot be overcome. It is possible to meet the needs of those with less
salience, but this must be accomplished at strategic times. Boundary managers will be
continuously forced to make difficult choices, and there will be no way of meeting the demands
of all stakeholders at all times. However, boundary management can be made more effective
through strategic timing and by being explicit with stakeholders about when their demands will
be addressed.
Fourth, boundary managers should develop fora in which stakeholder groups can meet
with each other. This can serve to enhance stakeholders awareness of the divergent demands
placed on the boundary organization and the tensions which these engender. They may also serve
to lower cultural boundaries between stakeholders and allow them to identify mutually beneficial
research issues or activities, decreasing divergent pressures on the boundary organization. In
these ways stakeholder communication can facilitate boundary management and develop more
realistic expectations about what the boundary organization can provide.
Fifth, boundary organizations should support ongoing external assessments of their
activities. Assessments are important for fostering adaptive learning, and as boundary
management occurs amid changing circumstances, flexibility and adaptation are critical. Further,
in knowing that the information they provide will be confidential stakeholders are likely to be
more forthcoming with external reviewers. External reviewers are also better positioned to
critique boundary organization leaders and powerful stakeholder groups as they have no vested
interest in the organizations success or failure.
Finally, university-based boundary organizations will be more effective in universities
with a high degree of goal alignment at administrative and departmental levels. Administrators
should collaborate with faculty to develop a collective mission for their university. This should
serve to lessen the decoupling of values and expectations at different administrative levels which
creates role strain and negatively affects the efficacy of the boundary organization.
Concomitantly, boundary organizations will be more effective in universities implementing
rewards systems valuing applied research, helping assuage concerns that applied research will
not contribute to career advancement. Still, while individual universities can work to create
environments in which policy related research is better supported, they are in many ways limited
by the larger inter-university system in which they are embedded.

Coda

This paper may seem to suggest that DCDC has struggled in its attempts at boundary
management. This is true; however, this is in no way a critique of the center, but rather a
hallmark of its leaders creativity and perseverance. In fact, DCDC has had important impacts on
both public policy and basic science. A survey conducted in tandem with this study found that
twenty-four percent of DCDC affiliated policy makers cite its research in professional reports,
and forty percent report that DCDC research has informed decisions made by their
administrative units. The 2008 External Advisory Committee report praised the quality of the
centers basic research and WaterSim for its improved analytic capability and responsiveness to
policy makers needs. NSF has also recently praised the organization, calling it excellent and
one of the best funding decisions NSF has made. In contrast to the quote introducing this
article we close with an aphorism attributed to Abraham Lincoln which we feel better captures
the essence of boundary management. You can please some of the people all of the time, you
can please all of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the
time. In attempting to be all things to all people all of the time there arises the risk of being
nothing to no one. As we have shown, effective boundary management is about knowing when
to be what to whom.









References
Agrawala, S., Broad, K. and Guston, D.H. (2001) `Integrating Climate Forecasts and Societal
Decision Making: Challenges to an Emergent Boundary Organization', Science,
Technology and Human Values 26(4): 454-77.
Altheide, DL. 1987. "Ethnographic Content Analysis." Qualitative Sociology 10: 65-77.
Boardman, C. 2006. University Research Centers and the Composition of Academic Work..
Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Role strain in university research centers. The Journal of
Higher Education, 78, 430463.
Box, S., & Cotgrove, S. (1966). Scientific identity, occupational selection and role strain. British
Journal of Sociology, 17, 2028.

Bozeman, B., & Crow, M. (1990). The environments of U.S. R&D laboratories: Political and
market influences. Policy Sciences, 23, 2556.
Bozeman, B. and C. Boardman, 2004.The NSF Engineering Research Centers and the
universityindustry research revolution: a brief history featuring an interview with
Erich Bloch, Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (2004), pp. 365375.
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D., et al. (2003).
Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Preceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 100(14), 8086-8091.
Cash, D.W. (2001) ``In Order to Aid in Diffusing Useful and Practical Information":
Agricultural Extension and Boundary Organizations', Science, Technology and Human
Values 26(4): 431-53.
Crow, M. 2007. American Research Universities During the Long Twilight of the Stone Age.
Rocky Mountain Sustainability Summit, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Davenport, S. and Leitch, S. 2005, The Role of Boundary Organizations in Maintaining
Separation in the Triple Helix, Paper published in 5
th
Triple Helix Conference
proceedings http://www.triplehelix5.com/programme.htm.

Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 57-74.
Formatted: English (U.S.)
Etzkowitz, H, & Leydesdorff, L (Eds.) (1997). Universities in the Global Knowledge
Economy: A Co-evolution of University-Industry-Government Relations (London:
Cassell Academic).
Etzkowitz, H & Leydesdorff,L. (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National
Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of universityindustrygovernment relations,
Research Policy, vol 29, pp 109123.
Geisler, E. (1989). University-industry relations: A review of major issues. In A. N. Link & G.
Tassey (Eds.), Cooperative research and development: The industry-university-
government relationship (pp. 4364). Boston: Kluwer.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P.,& Trow, M. (1994). The
new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary
societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gieryn TF. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility On the Line. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press.
Guston, D., Clark, W., Keating, K., Cash, D. Moser, S. and Powers, C. 2000. Report of the
workshop on boundaryorganizations in environmental policy and science, 9-10 December
1999.Global Environmental Assessment Project, J ohn F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Guston, D. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between politics and science: the role of the office
of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29, 87-111.
Guston, D. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An
introduction. Science Technology and Human Values, 26(4), 299-408.
Hackett, E.J . 1990. Science as a Vocation in the 1990s: The Changing Organizational Culture of
Academic Science. The J ournal of Higher Education, Vol. 61, No. 3: 241-279.
Hackett, E.J . 1997. Peer review in science and science policy, in Evaluating Science and
Scientists, edited by M.S. Frankel and J . Cave. Budapest/Oxford, Central European
University Press.
Hackett, E.J . 2005. Essential tensions: identity, control, and risk in research. Soc Stud Sci
35:787-826.
Hellstrm, T.& Jacob, M. (2003). Boundary organisations in science: From discourse to
construction. Science and Public Policy, 30(4), 235238.
Hilgartner, Stephen (2000) Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA:
Drama (Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press).

Keating, T.J . (2001) `Lessons from the Recent History of the Health Effects Institute', Science,
Technology and Human Values 26(4): 409-30.
Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2008). Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge
infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy, 33, 260-276.
Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2008). Delegation of authority in research funding to networks:
experiences with a multiple goal boundary organization. Science and Public Policy,
35(3), 183-196.
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., Anderson, J .C. 1993. Conducting Interorganizational Research Using
Key Informants, The Academy of Management Journal Vol. 36, No. 6 pp. 1633-1651.

Klerkx, L. and C. Leeuwis, Delegation of authority in research funding to networks: experiences
with a multiple goal boundary organization, Sci. Public Policy 35 (3) (2008), pp. 183
196.
Lahsen, M. and Nobre, C.A. 2007. Challenges of Connecting International Science and Local
Level Sustainability Efforts: the case of the large-scale biosphere atmosphere experiment
in Amazonia, Environ. Sci. Policy 10 :pp. 6274.
Ludwig, D., Mangel, M. and Haddad, B. (2001) Ecology, conservation, and public policy.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32:481-517.

McNie, E. C. 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An
analysis of the problem and review of the Literature. Environ. Sci. Policy 10: 1738.
Miller, 2001 Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental
governance in the climate regime, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 26 (4) (2001) pp. 478500
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J . 1997. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification
and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of
Management Review, v 22, n 4, pp 853-886.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P.,&Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in
an age of uncertainty. London: Sage.
O'Mahony S, Bechky BA. 2008. Boundary organizations: enabling collaboration among
unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly 53: 422-59.
Rittel, H. and Weber, M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Political Science
4:155-169.

Rod, M., Paliwoda, S. (2003), Multi-Sector Collaboration: A Stakeholder Perspective on a
Government, Industry and University Collaborative Venture, Science and Public Policy,
vol. 30 Issue: 4 pp. 273-284.

Sarewitz, D. and R.A. Pielke J r. 2007., The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply
of and demand for science, Environ. Sci. Policy 10 pp. 516
Schneider A. L., (2009), Why do Some Boundary Organizations Result in New Ideas and
Practices and Others only Meet Resistance? Examples From J uvenile J ustice, The
American Review of Public Administration, 39(1): 60-79.
Shanley, P., and C. Lpez. 2009. Out of the loop: Why research rarely reaches policy makers and
the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41: 535544.
Star, S. L. and J . R. Griesemer. 1989. "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations,' and Boundary
Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907
- 1939." Social Studies of Science 19: 387-420.
Tuunainen, J. and T. Knuuttila. 2009. Intermingling Academic and Business Activities: A New
Direction for Science and Universities? Science Technology Human Values 34, 684-704
Tuunainen, Juha (2002) Reconsidering the Mode 2 and Triple Helix: A Critical Comment Based
on a Case Study , Science Studies 15(2): 36-58 .
Tuunainen, Juha (2005a) When Disciplinary Worlds Collide: The Organizational Ecology of
Disciplines in a University Department , Symbolic Interaction 28(2) (in press).
Tuunainen, Juha (2005b) Contesting a Hybrid Firm at a Traditional University. Social Studies of
Science 35, 2, 173-210.
Vestergaard, J . (2007) The entrepreneurial university revisited: conflicts and the importance of
role separation, Social Epistemology, 21, 4154.

Appendix A

The potential combinations of the attributes of power, legitimacy and saliency lead to a typology
of seven potential stakeholder types.

1) power only =dormant stakeholder

2) legitimacy only =discretionary stakeholder

3) urgency only =demanding stakeholder

4) power +legitimacy =dominant stakeholder

5) power +urgency =dangerous stakeholder

6) legitimacy +urgency =dependant stakeholder

7) power +legitimacy +urgency =definitive stakeholder.


Stakeholder salience is predicted to be low when only one of the stakeholder attributes are
believed to exist, moderate where two are believed to exist, and high where all three are believed
to be present.


i
Theoretically, policy makers could choose to completely withdraw from any interaction with DCDC. Since a
boundary organization must, by definition, have at least one stakeholder from the policy community this could be
seen as a form of power wielded by this stakeholder.
ii
Agent-based models are computational models capable of quantifying decision making processes at the level of the
individual actor and exploring the subsequent emergence of systemic properties fromtheir interactions with each
other and their environments (J anssen, 2002).